SANFORD, Fla.  Prosecutors in the second-degree murder trial of George Zimmerman scrambled Tuesday to undo damage to their case by one of their leading witnesses, a Sanford police officer who interviewed the defendant hours after he fatally shot Trayvon Martin.

The witness, Officer Chris Serino, testified under cross-examination on late Monday afternoon that Mr. Zimmerman seemed to be telling the truth when he said he had fired his gun in self-defense. The officers admission made for a dramatic moment in the trial  and was a clear boon for the defense  but drew no immediate objection from the state. The court recessed for the day afterward.

But early on Tuesday, citing case law, the state successfully argued that Officer Serinos comments about Mr. Zimmermans veracity ought to be disregarded by the jury. The judge then instructed the jurors, who are being sequestered during the trial, to ignore the officers statement, nearly 17 hours after it had been made.

Officer Serinos testimony, in the second week of the trial in Seminole County Court, was the latest setback for prosecutors......

I hope that holds true. How in the world can the prosecution discount testimony merely because it’s favorable to Zimmerman, and came from an official? If he’d said something they like, they wouldn’t have discounted it. So, it’s not the official they have the problem with (or they could have objected to him before trial), it’s that what he said is favorable to the defense. Zimmerman doesn’t have a right to fair testimony, even if it turns out to be favorable to him? I thought the truth mattered (not really, but you know what I mean), search for the truth and all that. It’s only true if it discredits Zimmerman?

” The state also aired a televised interview from 2012 with Mr. Zimmerman by Sean Hannity, the Fox News host, in which Mr. Zimmerman recounted his version of events before adding, I feel that it was all Gods plan, as Mr. OMara squirmed by his side. “

I don’t think MOM really squirmed about anything. I’m sure he knew it was coming.

14
posted on 07/02/2013 4:00:47 PM PDT
by MNDude
(Sorry for typos. Probably written on a smartphone, and I have big clumsy fingers.)

A fair and impartial trial was never in the State’s plans. Why they did not sweat a “signed confreesion” a/l/a the Stalin era Show trials remains a mystery. The goal of tthe “trial” is to “legally” convict Zimmerman to go along with the media conviction.

2. The fact that the judge allowed a retroactive objection tells me the judge sees which way this trial is going and wants to protect the record against a possible mistrial.

Yeah. Maybe they'll try to get a mistrial, announce they're going to reserve the right to re-try Z. They then wait till the dead of winter to announce that they've decided not to pursue a second prosecution.

They could be planning to do this to delay setting Z free until we're out of the summer months. Less rioting.

Except that there's no winter in Flori-duh.

29
posted on 07/02/2013 4:13:28 PM PDT
by Steely Tom
(If the Constitution can be a living document, I guess a corporation can be a person.)

What I mean is the judge just deprived the prosecution of a possible mistrial. The prosecution didn’t object when the question was asked and now got the instruction they asked for, so they have no ground for mistrial and have to proceed. The judge may be thinking this thing is going the defense’s way and I don’t want there to be any ground for a second trial.

-- Wouldn't that be rewarding the prosecution for their own ineptitude? --

I suppose you can look at it that way. But the Q&A came under a cross examination, so the state didn't elicit the answer itself. I do think they could see it coming as soon as Serino answered "could have been a pathological liar, or could have been telling the truth." Both of those are ultimate opinions, even though he hasn't told the court which of those two he leans toward. The state should have objected on the spot.

Funny thing is that the state filed and won a motion precluding exactly this type of testimony from law enforcement, and should have been on guard for it.

I would want to know why he thought that, because there is no evidence of that. There was no basis on him even using that phrase at all, as MOM demonstrated directly after.

But yes, I think that asking a police detective if he thought the person he was investigating was being truthful or lying is a legit question. If he thought Zim was a pathological liar, then provide the basis for the formation of that opinion in detail.

I do not understand why this testimony was stricken, but the testimony of a proven perjurer, Rachael, was not, nor has she been charged with perjury or manufacturing evidence or conspiring to manufacture evidence in the form of that letter.

I am not saying these women are incapable of rendering a verdict that is just, because we do not know much about them. But I am saying that other opinions, including experienced trial lawyers, have commented that female juries tend towards emotion rather than facts.

-- I do not understand why this testimony was stricken, but the testimony of a proven perjurer, Rachael, was not, nor has she been charged with perjury or manufacturing evidence or conspiring to manufacture evidence in the form of that letter. --

Two separate questions. The jury is charged with evaluating the credibility of witnesses. That is their job. They will assign credibility to Rachael's testimony as they see fit. I suspect the figure she is not trustworthy under the circumstances.

But nobody came right out and said she is a liar. It was pointed out that she shaded her testimony when in the presence of Sybrina, that Sybrina was present for the Crump interview and the state's deposition. It is said that she is Martin's friend, which gives her a motive to lie to cover for him, etc. People lie on the witness stand all the time with no penalty beyond the jury thinks they are lying.

If Crump is guilty of manufacturing evidence, somebody has to produce direct evidence of that. If Rachael admitted that in this trial, it would produce cause to charge Crump, or de la Rionda, or whoever helped manufacture the false evidence. Rachael would get swept up in that too. But, prosecution would be under a different trial (not that the state would press charges against itself).

The basis is generally that fact witnesses are precluded from assuming the role of the jury. It is up to the jury to decide, for itself, whether or not it finds Zimmerman's account to be credible.

Okay, the witness cannot testify to his opinion of the defendant's truthfulness. But then why is it okay for the prosecution to ask if the comments made by the defendant showed "spite or ill will" toward the victim? Isn't that also asking for an opinion of the state of mind of the accused? How is the witness qualified to testify to one but not the other?

But after hearing the testimony this week, many legal experts said that the state had overreached and that it should have filed manslaughter charges instead. The jury can still find Mr. Zimmerman guilty of manslaughter, but it would fall to the prosecutors to argue for that result without appearing to concede a weakness in their case.

At the end of this NYT article

45
posted on 07/02/2013 4:33:20 PM PDT
by xzins
(Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! True supporters of our troops pray for their victory!)

It had grounds for a mistrial, and could have asked for that. Thats how to unring a bell.

If the prosecutor had made a timely objection, and if the witness had answered over that objection, there might conceivably be a basis for a mistrial. Since the prosecutor didn't make a timely objection, however, any mistrial resulting from such statements would have to be seen as the prosecutor's fault. While prosecutors are allowed to retry defendants after mistrials that are caused either by patently-wrongful actions by the defense or by hung juries, any mistrial which is forced by prosecutor's actions becomes an effective acquittal [if it didn't, prosecutors could simply force mistrials any time things seemed to be going badly]. Even if Judge Nelson were willing to declare a mistrial, and declare that it was the defense's fault, such a ruling would be immediately appealed, and the DCA would probably not waste much time in ruling that Nelson's declaration of mistrial conceded the case to the defense.

I wouldn't necessarily say that such an outcome couldn't happen. Judge Nelson probably doesn't really want anything to do with this case, so if she could punt it and put the DCA on the hot seat as the entity that sets Zimmerman free, punting the case might let her escape from it.

There is only one charge against Zimmerman: murder in the second degree. There are no lesser charges. If the prosecution has failed to provide sufficient evidence of depraved mind then the judge can issue a directed verdict of acquittal. The prosecution cannot reduce the charge once the trial has begun.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.